nationfandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:First Chamber
__NEWSECTIONLINK__ The First Chamber forum is only opened to Members of the Congress. Here MOTC can propose law proposals and other federal issues. They can be discussed and adjusted, until there are replaced to the Second Chamber for vote. Older proposals Postal service Because of above i also want to propose the following: Article ?: #The Lovian Postal service is a organization sorting mails, regulating the postal code system, and the post seals (this is a direct translation of postzegel) #The lovian postal service uses this postal code system: *1:Sylvania: **1000: Noble city (Downtown) **1010:South Noble City **1020:North Noble City **1030: West Noble City **1040:East Noble City **1050:Train Village **1051:Clave Rock **1060:Nicholasville *2:Oceana **2000:Hurbanova (downtown) **2001: East Hills **2010: Millstreet **2020:Drake Town *3:Kings **3000:Newhaven downtown **3010 Abby Springs **3020: Under abby:Excludng Malipa **3030:Malipa *4:Clymene **4000:Sofasi downtown: **4001:Adoha **4010:Hightech Valley *5:Seven **5000:Kinley With addition of one letter. In case a postal district contains one neighborhood, this letter is assigned to a street. In case a postal district contains more neighborhoods, the letter represents a neighborhood #Post seals from the Lovian Postal service contain a stylized portrait of the incumbent monarch ##In case there is no monarch, a image of the flag is used # The postal service is administered by the Department of Industry, Agriculture and Trade # There is a postal council, whihc contains all mayors. # Post has to contain a post seal to be free # post is sorted automatically Talk Any comments? Pierlot McCrooke 08:11, February 11, 2010 (UTC) :Yes, look at the previous topic. 10:22, February 11, 2010 (UTC) :I already saw that. That is why i am proposing this Pierlot McCrooke 10:40, February 11, 2010 (UTC) ::::@ Pierlot McCrooke, it looks as if you were inspired by the Belgian postal code system. Suppose in this virtual world, the largest city becomes a small hamlet (earthquake, innondation, migration of citizens), the system would prove not to be workable anymore. In my opinion, we should stick to the hexacode. --Lars Washington 10:43, February 11, 2010 (UTC) ::::: I feel the hexacode is too easy too use for criminals. I also have to say: the hexacodes are illegal used. Why? There was never a vote on them in congress, they where just voered in'(sorry for my bad english) undemocratically. That is what i want to change Pierlot McCrooke 10:47, February 11, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Unlegal? Well let's vote for it and make it legal, if that makes you happy, but that does not mean I agree with your concern. --Lars Washington 10:50, February 11, 2010 (UTC) :::::::I dont really get you Pierlot McCrooke 10:53, February 11, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::I im not in favor to change the existing postal code, hexacode, that's all. --Lars Washington 14:45, February 11, 2010 (UTC) :::::::I don't think there is anything wrong with the old system anyway. But I can see Pierlot has done quite some thinking on this matter. Since you, Pierlot, like to "merge towns" so much as you do, why not "merge" the two postal code systems into a combination of both? That's really your thing after all! Dr. Magnus 18:04, February 11, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::I think that is too much. By the way do you support this? THis is similar too TNT post in the netherlands Pierlot McCrooke 19:28, February 11, 2010 (UTC) What is the opinion of yuri? Pierlot McCrooke 10:28, February 21, 2010 (UTC) Lowering the power of the King/PM This is the first part of a bigger reform plan. This part of the plan is to be treated as one proposal. The goal of this part is to give more power to the Congress and to neutralize the positions of King and PM. Separation of Powers Currently the Lovian Constitution states in article 1.A.3. that: :Lovia shall be organized based on the principle of the separation and balance of powers - legislative, executive, and judicial - within the framework of constitutional democracy. I would like to make this more concrete by adding the following sentence: :Therefore no person is entitled to combine a top function in two or three branches of government; thus, the ruling monarch, the Prime Minister and the Supreme Court Judge shall be no less than three different persons. Mid-term and Crisis Elections One of the fields were the King and PM have too much power (compared to Congress, were the real sovereignty lies) are the organization of 'special elections'. The mid-term elections for example can only be organized on initiative of the PM. And there are no regulations at all about what to do when most of Congress is inactive. Therefore I suggest the following: * Changing Art.8.1.4: Mid-term elections can be organized if proposed in Congress and approved by a Congressial majority. (instead of "by the PM"). * Adding an Art.8.1.5: New federal elections have to be held when more than half of the Members of the Congress are inactive; either self-declared or if they have not edited for over a month (31 days); or when the Prime Minister steps down. This would also require a description of when the PM has to step down. I will handle that in the following part of this proposal. Federal Secretaries and Impeachment To make Congress even stronger against the King and PM, we have to build in an impeachment procedure that allows Congress to fire the entire government: * Adding an Art.8.2.3.1: When Congress has lost its trust in the incumbent government, it can vote a motion of distrust. When this motion is accepted by a normal majority (50%), both government and Congress are dissolved and new federal elections are to be held. * Adding an Art.8.2.3.2: When the Prime Minister and his government resign, Congress is dissolved and new federal elections are to be held. Furthermore, Congress should be able to question Federal Secretaries and other executives of the government. Also, the power of the King and PM in the composition of the government is too big. Therefore I would make these two changes: * Rewriting Art.8.2.1: The monarch and PM will chose which MOTC will become Secretaries of a certain Department. Their proposal needs to be accepted by a normal majority in Congress. * Rewriting Art.8.2.2: ''Congress should be able to question all executing members of government - of any level - about their activities. When they have lost their trust in the questioned person, they can vote a motion of distrust against him/her. When this motion is accepted by a normal majority (50%), he/she has to resign and a replacement has to be proposed by the PM and approved by Congress. Talk My support Pierlot McCrooke 10:27, February 21, 2010 (UTC) :Can I here and there change your wordchoice and such? 10:29, February 21, 2010 (UTC) ::Sure, and filter out the spelling mistakes and all that. 10:32, February 21, 2010 (UTC) :::I will, thanks. 10:35, February 21, 2010 (UTC) ::::You don't mind that I took a good cut in both our respective powers? 10:36, February 21, 2010 (UTC) :::::I don't Yuri. In fact, I always wanted this to happen. Democratization after demographic growth. 10:38, February 21, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Glad we can agree in these matters. That are already three votes, still six to go I guess?! 10:41, February 21, 2010 (UTC) Question: Why dissolve Congress if the Gov resigns? Is this really necessary; can't we figure out a more easy way? Elections can take up to two months! 10:44, February 21, 2010 (UTC) :They also do that in NL. BUt i dont know a easier way Pierlot McCrooke 10:45, February 21, 2010 (UTC) ::I know, they do it in most democracies. In fact this is the only 'correct' way to do so. Another option would be for the King to compose a new government with the person who got second most votes in the original elections. This all is however an emergency scenario of which I doubt it will happen. 10:47, February 21, 2010 (UTC) :::Okay, fine with me. Has the Dutch Queen already accepted Balkenende's resignation, btw? 11:25, February 21, 2010 (UTC) ::::No Pierlot McCrooke 11:27, February 21, 2010 (UTC) :::::Is she still on ski holiday in Austria? 11:27, February 21, 2010 (UTC) ::::::I dont know Pierlot McCrooke 11:28, February 21, 2010 (UTC) The Waldeners hereby give their full support to this proposal cluster. 12:59, February 23, 2010 (UTC) Abolishing the undemocratic local regulations This is the second plan of above mentioned reform plan. This part is also to be treated as a whole and aims at introducing more transparency and democracy in legal regulations. Because legal regulations made on local levels (states, towns, etc.) are undemocratic, we should abolish them. Only Congress should be able to declare a law. This would imply the following changes to the Constitution: * Art. 4.2/4.3/4.4 : removing the regulations concerning judicial structures on these levels; leaving only Congress in power to declare a law. * Deleting Article 5, that regulates the devision of judicial power between national (Congress) and local level(s). * Art. 6.1: replacing 'Federal or State Law' by just 'Federal Law'. * Art. 6.3: removing the regulations concerning the creation of a State Law. Furthermore, I would like to make it possible for anyone to propose a law. Currently, only MOTC can do so. This would require the following changes: * Art. 6.2.1: ''One or more Members of the Congress write a motion --> Anyone can write a motion and propose it in Congress (First Chamber) * Art. 7.3.1: One or more Members of the Congress write an amendment --> Anyone can write an amendment and propose it in Congress (First Chamber) Also, the judicial institutions on state level should be abolished. There are - luckily - not too many trials in Lovia and Supreme Court can manage them all. Therefor I would like to suggest that we also alter the following: * Art. 9.1: All judicial cases are to be handled by the Supreme Court (instead of the endless list of what they can do and what is for State Court). * The deletion of Article 10, which names the fields of authority for the State Courts. Talk My support, but a new role for the states has to be found Pierlot McCrooke 10:30, February 21, 2010 (UTC) :Indeed, but because that is a more delicate matter it should be addressed afterwards. 10:31, February 21, 2010 (UTC) Changes in the citizenship regulations This is the final part of the reform plan and is rather small. I believe its intention is clear. Because the regulations concerning citizenship are rather obscure (inhabitant for four days; 50 usefull edits), I would like to propose the following changes: 3.1. You can become a Lovian citizen if :1. You are active for at least four days :2. You have made at least 50 edits Only those two conditions have been altered, all other regulations would still stand (like giving name and gender). Talk I hope that all these references and changes are clear. It wasn't easy to write. If you should have any questions, just ask me or try to have a look at the Constitution. 10:34, February 21, 2010 (UTC) :My support Pierlot McCrooke 10:41, February 21, 2010 (UTC) ::Mine not yet. I had a more concrete proposal in mind. I'll try to write it down as well, okay? 11:24, February 21, 2010 (UTC) :::Sure. This is the part of the reform I spent least time on, as the result clearly shows. 11:30, February 21, 2010 (UTC) ::::I am very pleased with the idea of a faster regulation for citizens. I support the other proposals too. Well done! Harold Freeman 11:40, February 23, 2010 (UTC) New version My more concrete version, including a residence section: Article 3 – The Lovian citizenship # Every inhabitant of Lovia has the right to become a Lovian citizen. ## An inhabitant of Lovia is every person who has a domicile (permanent residence) within Lovia. ## There are requirements to become a Lovian citizen: ### He or she must reside in Lovia. ### He or she must have made at least 50 edits. #### Acts of vandalism or related edits are not to be included in this count. ### He or she must truthfully provide the following personal information: #### His or her official name that consists of at least one given name and a surname. #### His or her biological sex. #### His or her domicile (permanent residence); this being a full adress of a residence in a Lovian city or town. # The rights of a citizen are described in Article 2. # One's citizenship may be taken away as a punishment in a trial. What about this version? 11:42, February 21, 2010 (UTC) :Sounds alright to me. 11:45, February 21, 2010 (UTC) Again a new version Article 3 – The Lovian citizenship # Every inhabitant of Lovia has the right to become a Lovian citizen. ## An inhabitant of Lovia is every person who has a domicile (permanent residence) on a wiki-style map within Lovia. ## There are requirements to become a Lovian citizen: ### He or she must reside in Lovia. ### He or she must have made at 50 edits. #### Acts of vandalism or related edits are not to be included in this count. ### He or she must truthfully provide the following personal information: #### His or her official name that consists of at least one given name and a surname. #### His or her biological sex. #### His or her domicile (permanent residence); this being a full adress of a residence in a Lovian city or town. # The rights of a citizen are described in Article 2. # One's citizenship may be taken away as a punishment in a trial. This needs to be voted upon by Congress, because this may be controversial Pierlot McCrooke 11:47, February 21, 2010 (UTC) :The issue with the judicial branch is exactly that they solve things the Congress can't do... 11:50, February 21, 2010 (UTC) ::Citizen right take-offs are controversial, so i think this should be voted by Ciongress Pierlot McCrooke 11:53, February 21, 2010 (UTC) :::Of course they are controversial: but votes can be controversial too! The deal is: a judge judges the case, and his judgement should be considered fair as it is within the Constitutional limits. 12:00, February 21, 2010 (UTC) ::::I support the traditional view on this: judges are indeed capable of making a 'correct' decision. If you deserve a block then the loss of citizen can be added too. 12:02, February 21, 2010 (UTC)